
C'^/ %/S&V* \/^^\/* **v^'V* 






w 















-> 




















+* < 



^*™V V^V v™V %/^V 



w 







S??V V"\r V*^V V^V V 



W 
^ 


















c° , 







°o 



-of 
















SPEECH 



OP 



MR, RANTOUL, OF MASSACHUSETTS, 



THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 



DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JUNE U, 1852. 



The Hoxrse being in Committee of the Whole, 
stnd having under consideration the bill making 
appropriation for the Indian Department. 

Mr, RANTOUL paid: 

Mr. Chairman: The gentleman from Vermont, 
fMr. Meacham,] who spoke yesterday, and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Stevens,] 
who has just taken his seat, have addressed to 
me, individually, a large portion of the remarks 
which they have had occasion to make upon the 
subject of the tariff. Now, sir, I am not con- 
cerned, but that the common sense of the world, 
operating as it is upon both sides of the Atlantic, 
will set this question of free trade and protection 
right, without any assistance from me, I am not 
afraid that the people of the United States will be 
made to believe that the highest taxation is the 
greatest blessing, I am not afraid that the farm- 
ers of the West, by any degree of ingenuity, can 
ever be led to the conclusion that it is better for 
them to give two barrels of flour for a certain 
■quantity of iron, rather than one barrel of flour 
for the same quantity of iron; and to that it comes. 
Gentlemen may talk by the hour together about 
this question. Reduce it down to its ultimate ele- 
ments, and it is simply this for an agricultural 
nation: Do you choose, for the product of so 
many days' labor, to get a ton of iron; or would 
you prefer, for the same amount of labor, to get 
only half a ton of iron? If gentlemen of the 
West think two tons of iron better than one, and 
if they think they had better buy a given quantity 
%vith one barrel of flour rather than with two, then, 
I think, they will never aid Pennsylvania in screw- 
ing down labor, which has been the effect of pro- 
tection in England, Spain, and France, and where- 
ever it has been tried. I think they will never aid 
Pennsylvania capitalists in screwine; labor to the 
lowest point, in order to carry out theories which 
have been tried over and over again, and failed 
wherever they have been tried. 

Sir, the gentleman who last addressed the House 
addressed it very ably and very eloquently, but in 
a long series of historical facts, he is totally mis- 
taken in his idea. The supposition that civilized 
nations have always adopted high protective tariffs, 
is ridiculously wide of the truth. Why, sir, the 



commerce of ancient nations, and the commerce of 
the middle *tges, flourished in proportion to the 
freedom of that commerce, and it was the nations" 
who adopted restrictive systems — the nations that 
adopted restriction and protection that ruined their 
commerce, and caused it to depart to other better- 
conducted nations. 

Now, the gentleman meant to allude, as I sup- 
pose, although he did not specify it, to the Italian 
Republics of the middle ages, and to the great com- 
merce which extended round the shores of the 
Mediterranean. Now, sir, the gentleman may go 
as far back as he pleases — he may go back to Athens, 
a Republic made great, and wealthy, and power- 
ful by her commerce, and Athenian commerce was 
the creation of free trade — he may go back to the 
Roman Empire, and take the tariff under Diocle- 
tian, when the Roman commerce was at its height. 

The tariff of the time of Diocletian was a tariff 
lower than that of England now, and that df Eng- 
land, as everybody knows, is a great deal lower 
than ours. Then you come down to the first 
tariff that was constructed upon scientific princi- 
ples, after the downfall of the Roman Empire, 
which was that adopted under Godfrey de Bouil- 
lon, King of Jerusalem at the time of the Cru- 
sades, and put in operation in Syria, and which 
afterwards became a model for all nations around 
the Mediterranean, in Italy and everywhere else. 
You find that it is an " ad valorem" tariff, with 
very few exceptions, from beginning to end, and 
most of the duties are eight per cent., while some 
articles are put at sixteen per cent., and a very 
few, and those not important, at twenty-four per 
cent. Under this tariff, so much more liberal than 
any of later times, modern commerce had its birth. 
That is the truth of history, and it was the free- 
dom of commerce in the Italian Republics that 
made them what they were. It was from their 
great commerce that their great, wealth sprung up, 
and from their wealth grew up their immense man- 
ufactures, and not, as the gentleman supposes, 
that the commerce was created by the manufac- 
tures. He was putting the cart before the horse. 
But I am not going to make a speech upon the 
subject of the tariff now; but by-and-by, if the 
House will indulge me, after gentlemen from the 



.7f3« 



North, East, and particularly from New England, 
have said till they have to say in propping up that 
rotten system which has produced so much misery 
in England, and lias the same tendency here, I will 
take the liberty to reply, and for the present, think- 
ing it quite safe to do so, I leave these arguments 
without an answer. 

I pass on to a subject of as much more conse- 
quence than the tariff', as liberty is more important 
than property. Liberty and property are the two 
great objects of good government. Government 
ought to protect them both; and I hold, that of 
the two, liberty is infinitely the highest in import- 
ance; and when rights and liberties are outraged, 
it becomes an imperative duty to speak upon that 
outrage, and set it right before the country. 

I have been sitting here since the commence- 
ment of this session — ay, and it began before we 
took our seats here — I have been sitting here list- 
ening to denunciations of agitation, and agitators 
upon a certain subject, which has been handled a 
great deal upon this floor. " Cease this agitation ! 
Quiet the distracted country!" That has been 
the cry. We were told that we must cease agi- j 
tation upon that subject, at a meeting of the Dem- | 
ocratic members, before we took our seats here; i 
we were told so in a manner tending to promote j 
agitation. We came here on the following Mon- j 
day, and the first greeting that I received upon this 
floor, before we went into the election of Speaker, j 
while I was sitting very quietly, as I generally do, 
being a quiet and peaceable man, was a denunci- 
ation of myself individually, by a member from 
the South, [Mr. Meade, of Virginia,] who spoke ! 
of me as an agitator, coming here to stir up the 
nation into strife, to lash the waves of agitation 
into fury. I made no reply. Very strange for | 
an " agitator!" Again and again, for at least the j 
twentieth time, have I listened to the same denun- 
ciations, without replying. I have been taunted 
on the floor of this House with being an agitator, j 
By whom? By gentlemen from the South. All | 
the gentlemen who have risen here to denounce i 
agitation, and to stir up bitter feelings by that very j 
denunciation — all, I might almost say, have come 
from tire South. And persons who sit quietly in 
their seats and hear epithets applied to them, which 
they can scarcely, as gentlemen, listen to without 
immediately resenting them; gentlemen from the 
North, who have exercised all this forbearance, 
are again, and again, and again, and seemingly, 
without end, taunted in this manner by gentlemen 
who say that they desire quiet, and that agitation 
shall cease. If they do so desire, why do they 
not cease it? I and my friends have made no agi- 
tation. I have not opened my mouth before this 
House in any allusion to the subject of slavery, 
except in reply to a direct attack upon me. Again 
and again have I suffered such attacks to pass 
without notice or reply, but still the charge of agi- 
tation comes from another and another quarter, 
against me, and all those who think as I do. 

Well, sir, after sitting quiet so long, disposed to 
leave to abler hands the work I am about to under- 
take, I am at last singled out in such a manner, 
that I cannot, as a man of honor, sit quiet any 
longer. I am compelled to speak by a necessity 
which I cannot avoid, without the imputation of 
cowardice, and, as I think, a justly-deserved im- 
putation of cowardice, if 1 should remain quiet. 
That is my position. I speak not because I desire 
it, but because the men who say f* put an end to 
agitation," compel me to speak, and will not allow 



me to remain silent. That is the reason why is 
intend at present to discuss this question. 

I said, sir, that these taunts and sneers came 
from the South, but sometimes they came from 
gentlemen who happened to be born in the North. 
Uy what mysterious dispensation of Providence 
it happened that they were bom there, it i» not 
for me to conjecture. Why, there comes here 
from a district represented in the last Congress by 
an Abolitionist — an Abolitionist elected by the 
votes of the gentleman's friends — a young strip- 
ling, Hon. Coljn M. Is-GERsoLL.of Connecticut, 
who undertook to introduce Benedict Arnold as a 
subject of comparison on this floor. Well, sir, if 
Benedict Arnold is to be compared to members of 
this House, I, for one, claim the liberty to select 
the member with whom the comparison is to be 
made. Benedict Arnold, if I recollect aright, was 
born and brought up in Connecticut, and not in 
Massachusetts. He was a young gentleman of 
great promise — a gentleman from whom his friends 
expected something very magnificent, supposing 
him to be just the man fitted to rise in the world — 
a man troubled with no scruples. They were 
very seriously disappointed in that expectation. 
Benedict Arnold apostatized from the cause of 
freedom to the cause of slavery, if i have read 
history aright. His efforts against slavery did 
him honor. Ambition riveted about his neck the 
collar of slavery, and he was damned to eternal 
infamy. Well, sir, when gentlemen from Con- 
necticut choose to make comparisons of that sort, 
let them read their history carefully, tjnd see 
where a parallel will run; and not jump to find a 
parallel where there is nothing but a contrast. 
But, sir, (and that is my excuse for occupying the 
attention of the committee,) events have recently 
transpired, which are perfectly well known to 
every member of the committee, and, therefore, 
not necessary to be recapitulated in detail at pres- 
ent, which have singled me out, and made it my 
duty to explain my position. I am about to 
speak of this process of putting an end to agita- 
tion, so wisely conceived by these gentlemen, who 
must know, if they are sane men, they produce 
agitition by the course they pursue. 

Sir, when six and a half millions of white men 
in the South attempt to control the feelings, opin- 
ions, judgments, and consciences of thirteen and 
a half millions of white men in the North — when 
that process is attempted, and when they under- 
take to drive it through by threats, by force, and 
by all those appliances which make men revolt 
against their dictation, they must understand that 
they have to do with the descendants of the men 
who commenced and who fought through the 
American Revolution, and whose characters have 
not materially changed — those of them who stay 
at home — however much those who come here 
may be corrupted by the influences which sur- 
round them here — 1 say, those who remain at 
home have not very much departed from their 
original character. I allude to the circumstances 
which recently occurred at Baltimore, as my rea- 
son for addressing the committee at this time. 
Sir, I was unanimously elected a delegate to the 
National Democratic Convention by ballot, and on 
the first ballot, in the fullest convention that has 
been held in my district for many years — a con- 
vention regularly called, according to the uniform 
usage in Massachusetts for the last twenty-five or 
thirty years. I was sent there to represent five 
thousand Democrats, who act with the party in its 



Brvcoattg* 



regular organization. The convention thought 
proper to disfranchise my district — the only Dem- 
ocratic district in Massachusetts — and thought 
proper thereby to insuit, not merely that district, 
but the sovereign State of Massachusetts, which 
was shorn of her proportionate share of represent- 
ation in the convention by that proceeding. 

They then thought proper to go on and take 
measures for the union of the Democratic party. 
Is any one Democrat in Massachusetts bound by 
what you do in such a convention ? I sneak not 
of the course which those Democrats may think 
proper to take. That is a matter for them to de- 
termine. Butlask if any one Democrat in the State 
of Massachusetts is under any obligation growing 
out of the preceedings of a convention in which 
the State of Massachusetts was deprived of her 
proportionate number of delegates elected by her 
■choice ? That is a question for the Democratic 
party to consider, and for the Democrats of Mas- 
sachusetts to consider. 

As to the district which has been thus disfran- 
chised, why, sir, if there is a district Ln the United 
States, from the Madawaska to the Rio Grande — 
if there is a district from Massachusetts Bay to 
San Francisco that is, and ought to be Democratic, 
it is the district that I represent; and I should like 
to compare its history with the history of any 
other district represented by any other individual 
upon this floor. 

Sir, in my district is that glorious old town of 
Marblehead. Elhridge G-erry, coming from the 
town of Marblehead, was the chairman of the 
committee that reported the resolutions of the 30th 
of April, 17S4, giving the power to regulate com- 
merce to the Government of the nation — the reso- 
lution that laid the foundation of your Federal 
union. It was a citizen of my own native town 
of Beverly, and a native of my own district, Na- 
than Dane, who was chairman of the committee 
that reported the resolves of the 21st of February, 
1787, for calling the Federal Convention at Phila- 
delphia — the Convention that framed the Constitu- 
tion of the United States; and that same Nathan 
Dane, of that same town of Beverly, was the man 
who drew up the ordinance of 1787, which gave 
freedom to the broad territory Northwest of the 
Ohio. 

Well, sir, if I stopped there, I think I should 
have made out a list of claims for my district which 
it would not be very easy to surpass. But, sir, 
the first resistance to the power of Great Britain 
in the revolutionary struggle was in the town of 
Danvers — a town in my district, and which ad- 
joins my own. On the 26th of February, 1775, 
before the battle of Lexington, that which was 
done at Lexington and Concord was attempted to 
be done at Danvers. The British troops marched 
upon the town to seize the arsenals and stores of 
the Americans, but they were turned back. They 
were met by a collection of thp farmers and me- 
chanics of Salem. Beverly, and Darners, so strong 
that Colonel Leslie, who commanded the British 
troops, turned back discomfited of his purpose, 
knowing that unless he did doso,he and his party 
would be made prisoners-of-war. Danvers, far 
distant from Concord, and in a different county, 
had more men killed in the Concord fight than any 
other town after the morn.ng massacre. Bev- 
erly, my native town, sent her sons further than 
any other town on the 19th of April, 1775, to 
strike in the first battle for liberty; and I have seen 
the garment, stained with hia blood, in which 1 



one of her sons was killed on that day. The first 
Continental flag hoisted upon the ocean, in defiance 
of British supremacy, was the flag of the schooner 
" Hannah," fitted out from my own town of Bev- 
erly. The first commission given by Washington 
to the commander of any cruiser against Great 
Britain, was issued to Captain Manly, of Marble- 
head, in my district. The first in the long list 
of naval heroes; the first man who poured out his 
life in that great war against slavery, crying, as 
Lawrence afterwards cried, "don't give up the 
ship," was Captain Mugford, of Marblehead, on 
the 19th of May, 1775. 

There is the material out of which to form a 
Democratic Congressional district. It is a district 
that has bright" revolutionary glory — historical 
glory thickly clustered around it. It is not to me 
that the insult has been offered, but it is to that 
district which I have described to you. 

Why, I ask, is it that this insult, has been 
offered ? It is simply because, as I told the com- 
mittee who examined that case, when they asked 
me if I would pledge myself beforehand to agree 
to the resolutions which might be adopted by that 
convention, " I do my own thinking, and do not 
allow any convention to do it for me." That is 
the reason. Well, now, do gentlemen suppose 
there are not some millions of white persons at 
the North, who do their own thinking, as well as 
myself? If they suppose any such thing, they are 
grievously mistaken, and by and by the conse- 
quence of that mistake will begin to appear, a 
little more clearly than they now appear. It is 
because I determined to think for myself, and ad- 
hered to that determination, upon a great question 
of constitutional law; and thought it a duty incum- 
bent upon me to avow the conclusions at which I 
had arrived. 

That question of constitutional law I now pro- 
pose to examine. It is this: Is there in the Con- 
stitution of the United States a grant of power to 
legislate for the rendition of fugitives from labor? 
I say there is not; and no man who calls himself 
a Democrat — whether he hails from New Hamp- 
shire, or any other part of the Union — can for a 
moment sustain his character as a Democrat 
upon the position that there is such a grant of 
power. Why, sir, what is the distinguishing 
doctrine of the Democratic party? I suppose it 
is the doctrine laid down by Jefferson, in his com- 
ments upon the proposed veto of the first United 
States Bank. Thomas Jefferson says: "I con- 
ceive the corner-stone of the Constitution to be 
laid in the tenth article of the Amendments to the 
Constitution;" the article that no powers can be 
exercised by the General Government except such 
as are granted to it; that powers net granted to 
the General Government "are reserved to the 
States or to the people." That is the foundation 
of the Democratic faith , so stated to be by Thomas 
Jefferson, so understood to be by Samuel Adams 
and Elbridge Gerry, and all the old Democrats of 
New England as well as by Virginia, and the 
Democrats in the South; and that is the doctrine 
upon which I mean to take my stand. That is 
the doctrine of the Baltimore resolutions as they 
were; the doctrine of the resolutions of 1798, '99, 
adopted at Baltimore the other day, which gentle- 
men talk about in such a way as to lead one to 
suspect that they have not read them — the doc- 
trine of the resolutions of 1798, '99, which declared 
the alien and sedition laws to be unconstitutional 
by a course of reasoning which applies as strictly 



<o this question of the fugitive slave law as it does 
to the alien law, or the sedition law, or to any 
section or clause of either. 

But the State of New Hampshire, when the 
constitutionality of the alien and sedition laws 
came up in her Legislature, voted unanimously, 
in a full House, one hundred and th'uty seven mem- 
bers being present, and unanimously in the Senate, 
that those laws were clearly "constitutional, and, 
in Ike present critical situation of our country," said 
they, "highly expedient." Js there a man in New 
Hampshire who believes that now? New Hamp- 
shire blushes when that page of her history is re- 
called to the memory. It was then the unanimous 
opinion of the Senate and House of Representa- 
tives of New Hampshire, that the alien and se- 
dition laws were " CONSTITUTIONAL." It 
is the unanimous opinion of New Hampshire now, 
that they are UNCONSTITUTIONAL; and, sir, 
the day will come when every man's children will 
blush for his servile heresy upon this question, 
as the men of New Hampshire now blush for 
what their fathers did upon that question. 

The question of the constitutionality of such a 

frant of power is within a very narrow compass. 
t is only necessary to take up the history of the 
clauses included in the fourth article of the 
Constitution, and see where they came from, what 
they mean, and what changes they underwent. 
Sir, everybody knows that the Constitution con- 
tains an enumeration of powers granted to Con- 
gress. The powers granted to Congress stand by 
themselves, as they did in the old Articles of Con- 
federation. In another part of that instrument, 
distinct from the enumeration of powers granted 
to Congress, you find certain clauses of compact. 
I suppose there is not a man in this House who 
will undertake to deny that there are clauses of 
mere compact in the Constitution — clauses of com- 
pact between the States, which imply no grant of 
power whatever to the Federal Government. The 
whole question is, does the clause relating to fugi- 
tives from labor, belong to that class of clauses ichich 
give power to the General Government, or is it simply 
a dau.se of compact between the Slates? That is the 
question. 

Well, now, sir, the Continental -Congress re- 
solved, on the 11th of June, 17T6, to appoint a 
Committee of one from each Colony to report arti- 
cles of confederation. The next day the commit- 
tee was appointed, and Samuel Adams, of Mas- 
sachusetts, was the member from that State, upon 
it. On the 13th of July, 1T7G, a little more than 
a month afterwards, this committee reported the 
articles, which were debated, from time to time, 
and adopted by Congress on the 15th of Novem- 
ber, 1777. They were ratified by the States, one 
after another, until Maryland, the last on the list, 
acted upon them on the 1st of March, 17S1. 

The first article establishes the style of the Con- 
federacy — it shall be "The United States of Amer- 
ica." The second article is the key to the whole; 
and is therefore very important to be considered. 
It determines that the government to be estab- 
lished for the management of the general interests 
of the United States, shall be strictly held, and 
Confined within the limits of powers expressly 
granted by the act of confederation. It is in these 
words: " Each State mains its sovereignty, free- 
•dom, and independence, and every power, juris- 
diction, and right, which is not, by this Confed- 
'eration, EXPRESSLY DELEGATED to the 
• United Stales in Congress assembled." 



No implied powers there I " Expressly dele-- 
gated." This, I say, is the corner-stone of the 
whole system of the Confederation — State-right3 
jealously preserved; a few powers clearly defined 
are granted to a Congress, which is sternly pro- 
hibited at the outset, by the first fundamental 
regulations of its existence, from assuming any 
scintilla of power not so granted. 

There can be no difficulty, then, in ascertaining 
what powers belonged to the Congress under the 
Confederation. We have only to read the enu- 
meration, and we shall find them all expressly dele- 
gated; none others existed. 

Let us proceed, then, with our examination of 
the several " Articles of Confederation and Per- 
petual Union." 

Ry the third article, the said States "severally 
enter into a firm league of friendship;" but no 
power is granted to Congress. 

By the fourth article, the free inhabitants of 
each State, except paupers, vagabonds, and fugi- 
tives from justice, are " entitled to all privileges and , 
immunities of free citizens in the several Slates;" but 
no grant of power is connected with this particular 
provision of the compact. 

A second clause of the same article is in these 
words: "If any person guilty of, or charged ivith, 
' treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor, in 
* any State, shall flee from justice, and be found in 
' any of the United States, he shall, upon demand 
' of the Governor or executive officer of the State 
'from which he fled, 6f delivered up, and removed 
' to the State having jurisdiction of his offense." 
The power to deliver up the person guilty, or 
charged, is not " expressly delegated to the United 
States," but " each State retains " that power, as 
entire, and unimpaired, and unquestioned, and 
unquestionable, as if the Confederation had never 
been brought into existence. 

A third clause of the same article is in these 
words: " Full faith and credit shall be given in 
' each of these States, to the records, acts, and 
' judicial proceedings, of the courts and magistrates 
'of every other State." The Congress bad no 
power to enforce, or to regulate, this stipulation 
of the compact. Each State retained unimpaired, 
and unquestioned, all and " every power, juris- 
diction, and right," over the manner in which this 
agreement should be performed, and the effect of 
that performance. 

Now, the substance of this fourth article of 
Confederation — the substance of each of the three 
clauses of this fourth article— has found its way 
into the Constitution of the United States, consti- 
tuting, together with certain additional provisions 
to be considered by-and-by, the first and second 
sections of the fourth article of that instru- 
ment. 

How came these agreements of the old compact 
of 1777 into the Federal Constitution of the 17th. 
of Septtmber, 1787? What changes have they 
undergone in passing there? What effect and 
force, in their present form, do they now carry with 
them? Are they, by any means, transformed from 
mutual stipulations between contracting parties, 
into giants' of power, by parties surrendering what 
they had retained and reserved to themselves for 
ten years, to a new administration of thepowerai 
jurisdiction, and rights, in this behalf, then for the 
first time delegated to the United States? 

if so, how, when, why, by whom, by what apt 
words to express the transformation of these mu- 
tual covenants into delegations of power, was this 



new grant first made, and where in the record, do 
you find it written down? 

We will trace the subsequent history of these 
stipulations of the old Confederacy, and examine, 
first, the process to which they have been sub- 
jected, the changes resulting from it, and the ad- 
ditions they have received, and when we have 
sufficiently considered the clauses by themselves, 
we will inquire whether they are affected by their 
relation to other parts of the same instrument, and 
whether any different rule of construction is to be 
applied to interpret them, so as entirely to change 
their character. 

It does not appear that any complaint was made 
of the non-performance of either of these three 
stipulations by any State, either in the Conti- 
nental Congress during the ten years that followed 
the adoption of the Articles of Confederation, or 
in the Constitution Convention during its whole 
session, or that any apprehension of such non- 
performance in future was expressed from any 
quarter. Nor does it appear that any objection 
was raised against the clause concerning the faith 
due to public records, or that concerning fugitives 
from justice. 

It was, however, as it would appear, repugnant 
to the sentiments of South Carolina to guarantee ' 
all the privileges of free citizens of her own State 
to the colored free inhabitants of other States. On ' 
the 25th of June, 1778, South Carolina accordingly 
moved to insert the word " white" in article fourth, i 
clause first, between the words" free inhabitants." > 

On this proposition the States voted — ayes 2, I 
noes 8, divided 1; and the motion was rejected;! 
the two ayes were South Carolina and Georgia. 

South Carolina moved, after the words " sev- i 
eral States," to insert " according to the law of 
such States respectively, for the government of, 
their own free white inhabitants." On which mo- j 
tion the ayes were 2, the noes 8, divided 1; and it 
was rejected. 

South Carolina was unable to repeal that clause 
of the old Confederation, or prevent its passing into 
the new Constitution. But she has found a very 
convenient way of escaping its consequences since 
that time, and calls upon other States to fulfill their 
agreements in these articles of compact, a portion 
of which, understanding it perfectly well, as she 
showed by trying to change it, she still goes on 
coolly and deliberately, and habitually, and perse- 
veringly to violate. 

No other change seems to have been suggested 
in either of these clauses in the Continental Con- 
gress during the whole period often years. 

On the 21st of February, 1787, a grand commit- 
tee, of which the Hon. Nathan Dane, of Beverly, 
Massachusetts, was chairman, recommended a 
meeting of delegates from each State to revise the 
Articles of Confederation. On the motion of the 
delegates from Massachusetts, it was resolved to 
call a convention for that purpose, to meet at 
Philadelphia on the second Monday in May. 

Sundry members met on that day, May 14th, 
17S7, but the Convention did not elect their presi- 
dent, George Washington, until the 25th. On 
Monday, the 28th, they adopted their rules and 
orders, and on the 29th, they proceeded to busi- 
ness. On that day, Charles Pinckney, of South 
Carolina, submitted a draft of a constitution, 
which became the basis of the further action of 
the Convention. 

In this draft, the twelfth and thirteenth articles 
were as follows: 



"Art. XII. The citizens of each State shall be entitled 
to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several 
States. Any person Charged with crimes in any Stale flee- 
ing from justice to another, shall, on demand of the Exec- 
utive of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, and 
removed to the Stale having jurisdiction of the offense. 

" Art. XIII. Full faith shall be given, in eaeii Slate, to 
the acta of the Legislature, and to the records and judicial 
proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every State." 
There is no reason to suspect, therefore, that it 
had occurred to South Carolina at that time to 
convert either of these clauses into a grant of 
power, or to insert among them any provision for 
the case of fugitives from service. Neither of 
these changes had been thought of either by South 
Carolina or, so far as we know, by any other 
State. That these clauses, as they stood in the 
Articles of Confederation, were so far satisfactory 
to all sections and to all parties as not to be among 
those provisions of the compact which it was de- 
sired to revise, and which the Convention had come 
together expressly to reform, seems to be quite 
evident, not only from the facts already stated, 
but also from the circumstance that in the six other 
plans submitted to the Constitution Convention, 
in the form of resolutions, imbodying the views 
of leading statesmen, and of the different parties 
struggling to mould the new institutions upon 
principles in some respects widely diverse from 
each other, neither the faith due to public records, 
nor the immunities mutually pledged to citizens, 
nor the extradition of fugitives from justice, nor 
the extradition of fugitives from labor, is so much 
as once alluded to. "Yet the very object of all of 
these resolutions was to bring forward and pre- 
sent for discussion the views of their authors upon 
all the disputed points involved in the mission of 
the Convention. The plans to which I refer were 
Edmund Randolph's fifteen propositions, presented 
May 29th; Mr. Patterson's eleven propositions, 
presented June 15th; Colonel Hamilton's plan in 
eleven propositions, presented June 18th; Ran- 
dolph's plan as amended, and again submitted 
in Committee of the Whole, in nineteen resolu- 
tions, June 19th; the report of the committee 
of detail on the twenty-three resolutions, July 
26th; the report of the Committee of Eleven, 
made September 4th, and for several days after- 
wards. Neither of these plans contains any allu- 
sion to the question of fugitives from service, now 
insanely imagined by the fanatics of slave-worship 
to have been one of the leading " compromises of 
the Constitution" — a thing which no man in the 
convention which formed the Constitution dreamt 
of until it was suggested in another assembly, and 
upon another occasion, and for another purpose. 
On the 18th of June, the same day in which he 
submitted his plan, Mr. Hamilton read, as part 
of his great speech, his complete draft of a consti- 
tution, in which the clauses already given from 
Pinckney 's draft reappear in the following shape: 
" Art. IX.— Sec. 5. The citizens of each State shall be 
entitled to the rights, privileges, anil immunities of citizen? 
in every other State ; and full faith and credit shall be 
given in each Stale to the public acts, records, and judicial 
proceedings of another. 

"Sec tj. Fugitives from justice from one State, who 
shall be found in another, shall he delivered up on the ap- 
plication ot the State from which they fled." 

This draft of Mr. Hamilton is a carefully-fin- 
ished production, carried out into all the minute 
details, and giving the author's matured opinions 
what the Constitution ought to be in every one of 
its provisions. This gentleman represented the 
ultra federal, consolidation, monarchical tenden- 
cies of the Convention more fully and frankly than 



6 



any other member; and was most desirious to 
multiply and extend grants of power to the Fed- 
eral Government. He carried this notion so far 
aa to desire that the legislation of each State 
should he controlled by the United States; and to 
effect this object, in the tenth of the resolutions 
offered by him on the 18th of June, he proposed 
that the Governor of each State should be appoint- 
ed by the General Government, and have a veto 
upon all laws about to be passed in the State of 
which he was Governor. This, with his President 
and Senate for life, as proposed in the same reso- 
lutions, would have constituted a consolidated 
monarchy. 

Mr. Charles Pinckney, of South Carolina, was 
the champion of the sectional slave interest, and 
he also declared, in the debate on the 23d of Au- 
gust, that he thought the State Executive should 
be appointed by the General Government, and 
have a control over the State laws by means of a 
veto. Neither Mr. Hamilton, nor any other 
friend of the Northern monarchical interest, nor 
Mr. Pinckney, nor any other Southern friend of 
the sectional slave interest, had suggested in their 
drafts, or resolutions, or speeches, or in any other 
way; still less had any friend of Democratic free- 
dom and State-rights suggested, before the 28th 
of August, to give Congress any power over either 
of the three subjects of compact, viz: credit due to 
records, immunities of citizens, and fugitives /rom 
justice; nor had any one alluded in the Convention 
to the subject of fugitives from service. On the 6th 
of August, about a month after theprincipal com- 
promises had been settled, and the difficulties sur- 
mounted, a committee of five — of which John 
Rutledge, of South Carolina, was chairman — re- 
ported a constitution entire, a printed copy being 
handed on the same day to each member. In their 
report, the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth ar- 
ticles are as follows: 

" Art. XtV. The citizens of each Plate shall be entitled 
to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several 
States. 

"Art. XV. Any person chared with treason, felony, 
or high misdemeanor in any Stat », who shall nVefrom jus- 
tice, and shall be found in any other State, shall, on demand 
of the Executive power of the State from which he fled, he 
delivered up, and removed to the State having jurisdiction 
of the offense. 

"Art. XVI. Full faith shall be given in each State to 
the acts of the Legislature, and to the records and judicial 
proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other 
State.' 

On the 28th of August these paragraphs came 
up in order for consideration. Article fourteen 
was taken up. General Pinckney (Charles Cotes- 
worth Pinckney) was not satisfied with it. He 
seemed to wish some provision should be included 
in favor of property in slaves. Article fourteen 
was adopted — ayes 9, no (South Carolina) 1, 
divided (Georgia) 1. Article fifteen, the words 
"high misdemeanor" were struck out, and " other 
crime" inserted. Mr. Butler and Mr. Pinckney, 
(Mr. C. Pinckney,) both of South Carolina, 
moved to require " fugitive slaves and servants to 
be delivered up like criminals." Mr. Wilson, of 
Pennsylvania, said, " this would oblige the Ex- 
ecutive of the State to do it at the public 
expense." Mr. Sherman, of Connecticut, saw 
no more propriety in the public seizing and sur- 
rendering a slave, or .servant, than a horse. Mr. 
Butler does not object to either objection; but lie 
undertakes to change his proposition " Pie with- 
drew his proposition, in order that some particular 



provision might be made apart from this article." 
Article fifteen was then adopted "unanimously. 

Thus far there is no indication of any intent to 
make a grant of power. Butler's motion to require 
slaves to be delivered up, was to "require" the 
States to do it — not to empower Congress to do 
it; or rather, to authorize theNATio.vAL Execu- 
tive to do it. Wilson's objection shows this 
understanding: it would oblige the Executive of 
the State to do it at the public expense, as 
happens when one State demands from another a 
fugitive from justice. Sherman thought the pub- 
lic had no more cause to seize a slave than a 
horse. How did Butler propose to obviate this 
objection? Was it by transferring the duty and 
expense from the lesser public, the State, to that 
greater public, the United States ? It was by giv- 
ing to the master the same authority to recover 
his servant' that he had already to recover his 
horse; and it goes no further. A Virginian horse 
would be property in Pennsylvania. A Virginian 
negro held to service, might not be property in 
Pennsylvania. The Constitution stipulates that 
the character of property attaching to him before 
his escape, shall cause to attach to him in any 
State to which he may flee, whatever may be the 
laws of that State, a right of reclamation A horse 
so escapingmust be delivered up; so also must be 
a fiiffitive from labor. And that is all. 

When gentlemen imagine that the Constitution 
has attributed to the negro held to service — to that 
description of property — the character of sacred- 
ness that does not attach to any other property 
whatever, they misread the Constitution, and mis- 
judge the men who framed it. Than have done 
what you impute to them, some of them would 
sooner have had their right hands cut off: yet the 
clause, as it now stands, passed unanimously. The 
strict attention of very sharp intellects was drawn 
to this very question which I havebeen discussing. 
in that Convention, and they settled it with their 
eyes wide open, and as I have; as I will prove to 
this committee. Artielesixteenth of the draft was 
that concerning public faith in the acts of the Legis- 
latures and records, and judicial proceedings of 
the courts and magistrates of the several States. 
That was the last in this series of compacts. What 
did the Convention do with it? 

August 29, Mr. Williamson (of North Caro- 
lina) moved to substitute in place of article 16th, 
"the words of the Articles of Confederation on the 
same subject. He did not understand precisely 
the meaning of the article." Mr. Wilson and 
Dr. Johnson said it meant " that judgments in one 
' State should be the ground of actions in other 
« States; and that acts of the Legislature should be 
' included, for the sake of acts of insolvency." 

Mr. Pinckney moved to commit it, with a mo- 
tion for a power to pass bankrupt laws, and to 
regulate damages on protested bills of exchange. 
Mr. Madison favored the commitment, and wished 
a power to be given to Congress "to provide for 
the execution of judgments in other States. He 
thought this might be safely done." Mr. Ran- 
dolph thought there was no instance under heaven 
of one. nation executing the judgments of another. 
He had not been graduated in the modern Virginia 
consolidation school. Gouvernenr Morris moved 
to commit also a motion to give to Congress power 
" to determine the proof and effect of such acts, 
records, and proceedings." Nobody dreamed that 
there teas a power in the article already. Mani 
thought one should be inserted. It was committed. 



It became the opinion of the majority that they || altered, giving the power to Congress. Mr. Pierce 



Butler, General Pinckney, and Mr. C. Pinckney, 
the three otlier members from South Carolina — 
for there were but four in all — had, each of them, had 
his attention called to this subject on the very day 
before that on which the committee was appointed, 
they had, each of them, alluded to it in the Con- 
vention, and nobody else had done so, in the de- 
bate of August 28th. Three members from South 
Carolina— each having his attention specially called 
to the subject of fugitives from labor, on the 28th 
of August — that subject brought up again on the 
29th. John Rutledge was chairman of the com- 
mittee of five, appointed on the 29th, when Mr. 
Butler moves the clause of fugitives from labor, 
and that committee of five, who reported this 
clause on the first of September, took the ground 
that the power to legislate on the proof and effect 
of public acts, must be expressly granted. On the 
3d of September another debate took place, on 
granting this power, in which Madison, Gouver- 
neur Morris, Colonel Mason, Mr. Wilson, Dr. 
Johnson, and Mr. Randolph participated, with 
various views. No one suggests that the clause 
will give a power, although" none be expressed. 
The doctrine of implied powers had not then been 
strained so far. No onesuggests a power over fugi- 
tives from labor. Slaveocracy had not then ven- 
tured so far. It would have been rejected at once, 
But the clause as it stands passed unanimously. 

Does it not make a clear case? I would like ro 
see those profound lawyers of New Hampshire, 
or Virginia, or anywhere else, show us how the 
power was put into this clause of fugitives from 
labor, which was not originally there; and who 
put it there; and where, and how Roger Sherman 
and Elbridge Gerry were induced to put it there. 
John Rutledge put it there, in the clause of faith 
and credit to records; but he did not put it into 
the otlier clause. He had a reason for putting it 
in the one clause, and he had a reason for omitting 
it in the other clause. When Colonel Mason, on 
the 22d of August, only a week before this clause 
was unanimously adopted, told the world that 
" every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. 
' They bring the judgment of Heaven on a coun- 
treads the face of the globe/so carefully consid- II ' try. If nations cannot be rewarded or punished 
ered in the eifect of every word, as the Constitu- |j ' in the next world, they must be in this, by an 
tion of the United States. When the constitu- ' inevitable chain of causes and ettects, Providence 
tional Convention saw they had not made a grant 'punishes national sins by national calamities. 

ii # * # " He held it essential, m every point of 



had better attach to the compact a clause giving 
power to Congress over that subject, the faith to 
be given to records. 

John Rutledge, of South Carolina, was the 
chairman of the committee to which these clauses 
were referred to make the change. They took the 
clause which stood last in order and transferred it 
to the head of the list, where it now stands, attach- 
ing to it power to Congress to act upon the sub- 
ject. There it stands. Were these men so sim- 
ple as not to know whether a grant of power was 
necessary to be added, in express words, to ena- 
ble Congress to determine the effect of public acts, 
records, &c, in another State? Congress had the 
power already, as the article stood, if they have 
any power under either of the other clauses over 
fugitives from labor, or over either of the other 
subjects of either of these clauses of compact. But 
so thought not John Rutledge, of South Carolina, 
who reported the grant of power; James Madison, 
of Virginia, who desired a grant of power, and fa- 
vored a commitment for that purpose; Gouverneur 
Morris, a high-toned Federalist, who could find 
constructive powers wherever Hamilton could 
find them, but could find none here, and therefore 
asked for an express grant. All these clauses 
were in the Confederation originally, and articles 
of compact there, and nobody had ever pretended 
that they were anything else there. All the four 
clauses are still in their language, in terms, in their 
obvious — one might almost say, in their only pos- 
sible construction, articles of compact. Still, it is 
agreed to attach to one of them a grant of power, 
and not to the other three. The Convention takes 
out that fourth clause, makes it the first, and says 
Congress shall have power to determine the effect to 
be given to the public records of the States. 
Where did Congress get that power from, in 
either of the other clauses of compact where it is 
not given ? Why did Congress have that power 
given to them by express words in that clause, if 
the Government had it already in all these clauses, 
as they must, ifthexj had it in either ? These were 
not men to waste words. There is not a doc- 
ument in the language of any human race which 



of power in either of these four clauses, and came 
to the conclusion that they had better make it as to 
one of them; they knew what to do. They 
picked out that clause, put it at the head of the ar- 
ticle, and said Congress shall have power to deter- 
mine, by law, what shall be the effect given to 
public records. Why did they pot say: "Con- 
gress SHALL HAVE POWER TO PROVIDE FOR THE 
RENDITION OF FUGITIVES FROM LABOR?'' 

That is what they would have said had they so 

meant. They did not so mean, and therefore they 

did not say it. And this is the only reason which 

the ingenuity of man can divine for the omission 

to express a grant of power in this clause of a , 

Constitution, which grants no powers except those \ Henry, George Washington George Mason, and 

•riven in so many words, or those which, being i other Abolitionists of that clay-to use the word 

as we hear it used every day in Congress— im- 
agined that a provision so abhorrent to their gen- 
al views hud been inserted in the Constitution, 



vieic, that the General Government should /tare 

1 VOWer TO PREVENTTHE INCREASE OF SLAVERY 

When that far-seeing Virginian, who seems to 
have anticipated the history of Virginia in the 
nineteenth century, uttered these memorable words 
in the Convention, do you suppose that he was 
contriving a Government to be used as a great 
neo-ro-catching machine, and that should be good 
for" nothing else— to be broken up the moment it 
ceased to perform that function, as seems now to 
be the prevailing opinion among the demagogues 
of both parties? Do you suppose for a moment 
that James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick 



subsidiary in their nature, are essential to the car- 
rying into exercise of powers granted in so many 
words. Where they desired a power, the clause 

was changed. Who made that change' Was j' and did not make it the subject of indignant com- 
this a cunning devise of Northern men? John || ment in the Convention or out of the Convention 
Rutledge was chairman of the committee appointed Mr. Madison would not suffer the black ana 
on the'29th of August, that reported that clause as \\ odious name of slave to be named in tne Oons.i- 



8 



tution. Is it conceivable that he meant to enroll 
the hunting-down of the fugitive slave among the 
highest duties of the Government founded under 
that Constitution, as our present Administration 
esteems it to be? 

Are we to believe that one half of the Conven- 
tion, beiii'j: honest and firm men, belied all the 
instincts of their hearts, all the prejudices, if you 
choose so to phrase it, of their education, all that 
devotion to the principles of liberty in the abstract, 
which the Revolution had developed, and made 
themselves parties, without a particle of induce- 
ment held out to them, without a word of remon- 
strance from one of them, to an eternal national 
slave hunt? Are we to believe this, not only with- 
out evidence, but against all the evidences? Let me 
remark upon the strangeness of this fact. Among 
the thousand letters which were written by lead- 
ing members of the Constitution Convention, or 
of the State Conventions at the South, and at 
the North, never was there anything produced 
that would lead one to suppose for a moment 
that the Convention, or any man in it, or any man 
out of it, in the year 1787, suspected that the clause 
relative to fugitives from labor, contained a grant 
of power. 

Not a solitary letter, speech, journal, memoran- 
dum, or record, of any description has been 
brought forward, which contains the explanation j 
which is now put upon this clause for the pur- ; 
pose of impairing State rights — helping to build ' 
up a consolidated system of Government, which ' 
is centralizing' power, and growing stronger and j 
stronger every day and every hour, without cast- j 
ing into the vortex to be swallowed up in the Fed- ' 
eral maelstrom, the State institution of slavery ! 

Do the Southern gentlemen know what they j 
are doing? Do you mean to throw the whole 
power over the subject of slavery into the hands I 
of the Federal Government? You do it here. 

Do gentlemen desire that two thirds of the white 
men of the country — aye, a great many more than 
two thirds very soon, for by the next census we 
shall have at least twenty-one millions of white! 
people at the North, and nine millions, at the ut- 
most, at the South— do gentlemen desire that those i 
twenty-one millions of people should take this i 
subject of slavery into their hands — to let it agi- j 
tate, and agitate, and convulse the whole nation, ' 
until it shall finally be treated, as it will be treated, 
if it becomes the fuel of a universal conflagration 
through this land? Let Southern statesmen take 
warning in this matter. I desire to stand upon 
the Constitution, your only rock of safety, in this 
terrible future, glimpses of which are opening upon j 
us — to stand there, because I think I can stand 
there safely, and nowhere else. 

When I said that John Rutledge, of South 
Carolina, was the man who reported the grant of 
power in the one clause, but that he did not report 
any such grant in the other clause, 1 had not ex- 
hausted the argument. The clauses underwent 
another scrutiny; they passed another ordeal. 
This matter was committed to a committee of 
eleven for revision. It came back in essentially 
the same shape. Who was upon the committee 
of revision? Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, of 



South Carolina, was one of that committee of 
eleven. His attention had been drawn to this 
subject, the reclamation of fugitive slaves, for he 
had not only taken part in the discussion of the 
subject on the 28th, but he was the individual 
member who first introduced it to the notice of 
the Convention. If he wanted a grant of power, 
he knew how it was to be expressed, for the 
clause in which the grant of power was inserted 
on the same day thai the fugitive from labor clause 
icas adopted, was also before that committee. 
James Madison, a sound and a keen constitu- 
tional lawyer, was one of that committee. Lu- 
ther Martin, of Maryland, was also of that com- 
mittee. If ever there was a strict constructionist, 
Luther Martin was one; and he also, as well as 
Mr. Madison, was a sound constitutional lawyer, 
as the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Bayly,] 
who reviewed this matter the other day, will 
allow. If the committee intended a grant of 
power, would Luther Martin have left it to be 
implied, and that, too, in such a manner that it 
requires your optics to be sharpened by a judicial 
decision to discover the implication? 

Williamson, of North Carolina, was also of 
that committee. Here were men who would look 
to the interests of the South, and if they meant a 
grant of power, express a grant of power. Why 
did they not do it? Why did they not put it 
there? They have not put it there. Perhapsthey 
did not want it; perhaps they wanted the power, 
but knew they could not have it. One or the other 
is the natural and true interpretation. Thisclause 
came from the ordinance of 1787, passed by the 
Congress of the Confederation — a clause that there 
should be no slavery northwest of the Ohio, and 
that a fugitive flying from labor into that territory 
should be delivered up. 

That was a compact, and that compact we could 
not fail to understand. It contained no grant of 
power. It is not materially changed as to this 
point. Trace out its history; it is easy to find 
what that compact was, and whence it came. It 
was copied from an old New England compact, 
made in the year 1G42, between Massachusetts 
Bayand her neighbor colonies. Afterwards, sub- 
stantially, the same compact was renewed, and 
extended a little further, but granting no power — 
simply an agreement to return each other's run- 
away servants. This is the whole history of it. 
Nathan Dane copied a familiar provision of New 
England policy from those old contracts into the 
ordinance, which made the whole Northwest free 
son. forever. 

Mr. Jefferson in 1784 attempted to make all 
the territory then belonging to the United States 
free soil. He attempted to exclude slavery by an 
organic ordinance from Alabama and Mississippi, 
and all the Southwest, as well as the Northwest. 
It was defeated by the vote of Mr. Spaight, of the 
State of North Carolina. If Spaight had been a 
Jeffersonian Democrat that day, there would have 
been no slavery west of the Alleghanies. Mr. Jef- 
ferson proposed to exclude slavery, but did not 
provide for the rendition of fugitive slaves. That 
was Thomas Jefferson's plan in 1784. 

[Here the hammer fell.] 



Printed at the Congressional Globe Office. 



,^s$p- 







v 



A* 






*'* .1. 






■*V* A< v^^V* %/^^V* *v^*V* 










4 V ^ 












♦ 4* ^ *«^R^«* ^ 











^ ^^>» ^ 









-^^ 




